Editorial: When it comes to campaign cash, candidates unsure what's legal and what's not

Star-Ledger file photoFormer Newark Mayor Sharpe James, seen at federal court in this 2008 photo, is being fined after a judge ruled he broke the law using campaign funds to pay for his legal defense.

By 2006, Newark Mayor Sharpe James sensed forces were aligning against him — both political and legal. So he started hiring lawyers.

By the time he was convicted of federal fraud and conspiracy charges in 2008, James spent handsomely on his criminal defense, nearly $100,000 from political campaign accounts. Now, a judge says James has to pay that money back.

James argued, in a losing battle, that the rules weren’t clear. Heck, he said, he wasn’t even indicted when a lot of that money was spent.

In that sense, at least, he’s correct: His case highlights — again — the state’s need for clearer, stricter guidelines when it comes to how candidates are allowed to spend campaign funds.

In criminal cases, the reason for the ban is obvious. Imagine a corrupt politician selling his office to raise millions of dollars in illicit campaign donations — then using that same money to shield himself from conviction.

Elsewhere, the rules are more ambiguous.

Such as the case of Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo, who attracted the Election Law Enforcement Commission’s attention for reimbursing his personal credit card more than $250,000 from campaign funds over the past decade. He’s now working with ELEC to detail what, exactly, those expenses were. For example: Over three months last year, his campaign paid for 110 meals, golf and a political retreat in Puerto Rico. ELEC wants more details to see whether the money was spent on legitimate campaign-related expenses — or personal ones.

It’s a problem at all levels. Congressman Rob Andrews (D-1st Dist.) faces an ethics probe after he had to reimburse his campaign account after spending $9,000 to fly his family to Scotland — for the wedding of a donor’s daughter.

New Jersey law says candidates can use contributions for “ordinary and necessary” expenses. Clearly, they need those spelled out.

Lawn signs? Okay. Weddings? Please.

That’s why ELEC wants stricter laws that cover those foggy areas — for instance, that campaign-funded dinners come with records of who attends, what’s bought and how it’s connected to a campaign. The commission also wants tougher penalties and bigger fines.

New Jersey’s campaign finance rules are full of wiggle room. How strict can they be if James — prohibited from ever holding office again — still controls an $800,000 campaign account? That’s influence he can dole out to other politicians — and it’s perfectly legal.

In the short term, what’s needed are clear rules that have teeth. Even the pols will have to appreciate clearer instruction.

Today, candidates must report, in detail, where campaign money comes from. More openness is needed to show how that money ultimately is spent.

Voters need those tools to connect the dots of influence that flows in and out of public office.